| The 10-A conundrum |
| Written by LESLIE SCANLON, OUTLOOK NATIONAL REPORTER | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 04 May 2011 15:01 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tossing ‘fidelity and chastity’ rule would open a new set of questions So what will it mean for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) if the ordination rules change? For more than a decade now, the PC(USA) has required that those being ordained practice fidelity in a marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity if they are single. If a majority of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries pass Amendment 10-A and the “fidelity and chastity” requirement gets tossed out, how will things change? Some predict there will be a recalibration of how presbyteries and sessions examine, ordain and install church leaders. But they also stress that no congregation will be required to accept an openly gay leader if the session doesn’t want to. And the new rules won’t just apply to gays and lesbians. Heterosexual candidates also can expect scrutiny, especially if they are unmarried and live with a romantic partner. New standards No longer would “fidelity and chastity” be the rule – but that doesn’t mean there would be no rules. Presbyteries and sessions still would have the responsibility to examine candidates for ordination or installation. Language regarding the “manner of life” of candidates would remain in the Book of Order – with the standard being that “their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world.” And there would be the further instruction that “governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.” That likely would mean that some congregations and presbyteries would ordain gay and lesbians who are involved in relationships – and some would not. Also, a particular governing body might decide to ordain some gays and lesbians but not others, based on individual assessments of their backgrounds, faith statements and gifts for ministry. Conservative presbyteries or congregations might decide to continue applying some version of the “fidelity and chastity” standard. Basically, this would mean they would refuse to ordain any candidate who is sexually active outside of marriage, said Doug Nave, a lawyer involved with the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, which has worked for years to change the ordination standards. “There’s no requirement that you ordain gay or lesbian people,” Nave said. But for congregations or presbyteries willing to do that, the new language would “give sessions or presbyteries more comfort they can ordain the people they want to ordain.” The new language could lead to difficulty in some circumstances – particularly for ministers seeking to transfer from one presbytery to another or for candidates seeking ordination in closely divided presbyteries. Clark Cowden, executive presbyter of San Diego presbytery, said he expects to see “a little more scrutinizing of pastors wanting to transfer in” – scrutiny that could become tense in conflicted presbyteries. What if, for example, a more liberal congregation in a mostly conservative presbytery wanted to call a gay pastor living in a committed partnership? “That could be tough,” Nave said – the presbytery might vote to deny that pastor membership. Also, some gay or lesbian pastors, elders or deacons already serving congregations might choose to publicly disclose their sexual orientation or introduce a partner – which, in individual cases, may or may not come as a surprise. With the new standards, “it’s not a secret that has to be kept,” said Wilson Gunn, executive presbyter of National Capital Presbytery. Examinations As is true now, the responsibility for examining candidates for ordination or installation would lie with the local governing body. And those bodies would have to decide exactly what is fair ground in that process – what are appropriate questions and what goes too far. While the common wisdom is that governing bodies need to be consistent by asking the same questions of all candidates, it’s not necessarily clear where the boundaries for such questioning may lie. Say, for example, that a candidate says nothing about sexual orientation, personal relationships or dating. Is it acceptable to ask? And don’t forget: The change in policy wouldn’t apply only to gay or lesbian candidates. Heterosexual candidates too might be asked questions about their personal lives and dating relationships. It is likely that cases would be filed in the church courts to resolve questions about how examinations should be conducted or conflicts over particular ordinations. Some welcome the chance for presbyteries and sessions to become more thoughtful and intentional about how they conduct such examinations. “In a way it takes the roles of church officers more seriously and will push people to say `We’re not just filling slots on an organizational chart,' " Cowden said. "We really are looking for people who are spiritually mature and have good character. Hopefully it will increase the quality of church officers.” Some presbyteries may also begin to speak more explicitly about Christian faithfulness and sexual ethics – about what’s expected of church officers. Gunn is executive presbyter for National Capital Presbytery, which includes churches in Washington D.C., where same-gender marriage is legal. Gunn said he would propose that the presbytery recommend to gay or lesbian candidates living in committed relationships that they go ahead and marry, now that it’s lawful to do so. “I think we say, `You don’t live together’” outside of marriage, Gunn said. Whether gay or straight, “‘you go get married,’” if you’re in a committed relationship and want to serve in ordained ministry. Numbers Even if the new rules would make it easier for gays or lesbians to be ordained or installed, that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be huge numbers of cases. Those wanting to serve as ministers would have to have a call – and there already are many more people seeking jobs as pastors in the PC(USA) than there are positions available. Some gays and lesbians who wanted to serve in ministry have left the PC(USA) – some to serve in other denominations, some leaving the church altogether because they did not feel welcome. It’s likely the changes would be felt most quickly in local congregations, as new classes of elders and deacons are elected to serve. Conscience A big point of conversation involves how much room might be made for those whose beliefs and interpretation of Scripture do not allow them, in conscience, to participate in the ordination or installation of sexually-active gays and lesbians. In some circles, questions are being asked about whether the “Kenyon case” might apply here too – that of Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate from Pennsylvania who was denied ordination as a PC(USA) minister in 1974 because he said he could not participate in ordaining women, although he would work with women who had been ordained. Kenyon believed the Bible forbids the ordination of women. Might the Kenyon principle be applied to the case of someone who could not in conscience participate in the ordination of gays and lesbians? Who knows? But at the presbytery level, it would be possible for an individual minister to decline to participate in an ordination, while that candidate could still be ordained by other members of the presbytery. It would be more difficult, Nave said, if a minister refused to ordain a gay or lesbian elder or if a presbytery began asking candidates for ordination hypothetical questions about whether they would be willing to participate in ordaining gays and lesbians. A lot could depend, Nave said on the degree to which Presbyterians at the grassroots see this as a significant issue of conscience – and the extent to which they are willing to show one another mutual forbearance. His advice to those who have worked to change the ordination standards: “Be gracious. We know that hammering people when there’s a matter of conscientious disagreement doesn’t work. People on our side have felt the oppression of that for 30 or 40 years, and we shouldn’t do that to others.” Judicial cases Some judicial cases now working their way through the church court system might fall by the wayside – for example, that of Scott Anderson, a gay man from Wisconsin who has a long-time partner and who had declared a “scruple,” or objection based on conscience, to the “fidelity and chastity” requirement. John Knox Presbytery accepted Anderson’s scruple in February 2010 and approved him for ordination, but that ordination was challenged, and the case is due to be heard by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission this summer. Anderson, the executive director of the Wisconsin Council of Churches, previously served as a PC(USA) minister in California, but set aside his ordination in 1990 after two members of the congregation he then was serving publicly disclosed his sexual orientation. Another pending case involves Lisa Larges, a lesbian from the Presbytery of San Francisco, who declared a scruple saying that the “fidelity and chastity” standard gives same-gender couples an “impossible choice” by not honoring their faithful, covenanted partnerships. San Francisco presbytery approved Larges’ scruple, but a challenge was filed. If the “fidelity and chastity” language is removed from the PC(USA)’s constitution, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission may set those cases aside. Your Responses (10)
Mary L. Uray
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
... Dear Editors of Outlook: Since you made it clear you want to hear from your readers: First of all, our Presbytery has yet to vote on the Admentment 10-A. So apparently the majority of presbyteries have already decided on it. Just as a note: we have a very liberal Presbytery so I am sure they concur with that majority. I think the problem is that the Presbyterian church ordains not only ministers, but elders and deacons too. Why? Elders and deacons are usually asked by nominating committees to serve for a 3-year term, and such members oblige because they feel they can use their professional skills to help the church. Accountants help as treasurers, engineers help as property committee members. Teachers help in Christian Education. I do not believe they commit themselves to the life of "purity" that is required of a minister of the gospel. It takes a lot of nerve (or acting ability) for a preacher to hide a "sinful" life from the people in the congregation. Of course, it is Expected that an Elder or Deacon will comply with high standards. But an elder doesn't come under such scrutiny as a "teaching elder," and many wouldn't accept the nomination if it was required to take such an oath. If you tried to enforce it, any church might lose a few church officers! If an elder or deacon has an inclination toward "deviant behavior", no one has the right to ask and they sure don't have to tell in front of the congregation. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am, but my husband is even more-so. His family as been Calvinist since the Reformation and he says if our church calls a homosexual minister, he will stop going to church. Didn't any of you notice that when Pope Benedict visited the United States, he only addressed the young people and apologized for the sexual abuse done to children. He is known as one of the world's top theologians. That he chose such a basic subject means - Bring your children to the Catholic church. We will keep them safe and teach them morality as it has been taught through the ages. We will punish anyone who disobeys our commandments. We are missing two generations in our church. If nothing is sinful anymore, why go to church? Young people went to church to find mates and trusted that the sinful ones wouldn't be hanging around the churches. Now they go on the Internet and no one is vetting who they meet there. A fundamentalist Baptist very close to our church is bursting at the seams with children signing up for their Vacation Bible School. When I commented on how we had a modest rise in our VBC enrollment, they told me they had ten times as much! And then added the comment, "we teach religion." Well, thanks for the invitation to "tell us what you think." Mary L. Uray |
Ross Slaughter
said:
|
... Doug Nave is quoted in the article as saying: "There’s no requirement that you ordain gay or lesbian people." Now technically he is correct. However this is a diversionary (I think deliberately so), since this is NOT the issue or the concern many evangelical Christians have. No one is required to ordain any who is unfit for an ordained office. That's the way it has always been for sessions and for presbyteries (People are talking as though this were some sort of new breakthrough in reformed polity - bogus!). Here's where the issue goes now that 10-A is (most likely) passed: No one will be able to base one's evaluation of a candidate's fitness for ordained office based on sexual orientation. No one can appeal to an authoritative interpretation which would raise the issue of same sex activity and biblical interpretation. That was taken off the table. Now, no one can appeal to the Book of Order on this issue. This is now off the table. If any ordaining body which holds to biblical guidelines for sexual ethic that view same sex activity as sinful, whether in a committed (or married) relationship or not, - that action can be and will be challenged (without fail), and a "fidelity/chastity" stance on the part of an ordaining body cannot be sustained. The time will come when this issue cannot even be raised from the floor of presbytery or in session. It will be viewed merely as a mean spirited "opinion" which has no place in the body of Christ, and which has absolutely NO backing in church law. For most of evangelical faith conviction - either sit down and remain quiet or simply leave (on a personal basis to whatever church you may choose to go). Who, on either side of this issue, is thinking that mutual ministry is possible? |
Charles Jeffery
said:
|
Bubank, CA Mr. Dan Clark - In your effort to tell us about those that want to maintain our ordination standards, you actually told me nothing about them and so very much about yourself. As someone that does struggle with same sex attraction, I would avoid setting foot in a church where you are pastor and I would tell others like myself to avoid such a place as well. |
Rev Dan Clark
said:
|
Warminster PA I never beleived those who wanted fidelity and chaistity in the Book of Order were very serious about the issues these two words raise. They simply wanted a "fig leaf" to provide a rationalization for denying gay and lesbians equal acess to ordination. Now, however,they seem to want to take this more seriously. I suscpect, however, they will encounter, as most pastors have already, the difficulty in treading in these waters. We, as a denomination, need to have more conversation about human sexuality iwthin and outside marriage. The only problem is the same one we have always had: when a progam to deal with this issue is before the GA, the conservatives do not want to talk about let alone have their names on a program that asks their members and youth and young adults to talk about. The failure of the PCUSA to engage in healthy discussion about human sexuality rivals our hyprocracy on church unity as the number one sin in our denomination. Now, I hope, the PCUSA, will be forced to deal with this issue. |
Jim Conner
said:
|
Arcadia, Ca Response to: D Carothers From Jim Conner The change to the Book of Order is not going back to what it was pre-1997 because the PCUSA's Authoritative Interpretation on ordination for persons identified as homosexual has been removed. Otherwise this would have prevented persons engaging in un-biblical behavior from being ordained. On the argument that we ordain divorced and remarried persons, I agree this is a problem and it is part of our drift and has been part of the Presbyterian churches decline. I have met more than one Presbyterian pastor who have 5 or more marriages and are unrepentant about this being sin. Each of them told me 'I simply did not understand how difficult it was to be in an unhappy marriage.' Can a person be forgiven for divorce, certainly. Should they remain ordained after two or more? No. Should persons practicing sex outside of marriage be ordained? No. Are some of them talented and charming? You bet! Does Jesus love them? Absolutely. Does Jesus love automatically qualify them for leadership? No. Those who have fallen can be restored but they should not be in leadership positions, this serves as a caution to others who may be likewise tempted, and they could function as a caution to those who would wreak havoc in personal relationships and in the church. We have a long way to go to restore Biblical values. |
D Carothers
said:
|
Harrisonburg, VA Quite a bit of fuss about the earth-shattering, momentous, grave, and fateful event in which one aspect of the PCUSA policy will revert to pre-1997 status. Oh, my. Perhaps Mr. Anderson et. al. might consider that for decades those who believe that being divorced and in a second marriage is a sinful lifestyle (in my view with much stronger evidence that they have a "traditional biblical interpretation" than those using that phrase in the current debate) have taken communion with and received communion from those who practice that lifestyle and those who do not believe it to be sinful. The world has not ceased to exist as a result, and neither has the Prebyterian Church. |
Charles Wilkerson
said:
|
Portland, OR. So, if what I'm reading is right the idea of "connectionalism" within the PCUSA is null and void as ordination becomes a matter for only congregations and Presbyteries? |
James D. Berkley
said:
|
Seattle, WA How soon permission to ordain practicing gay persons will become a requirement to ordain practicing gay persons! It simply must happen, if practicing gay ordination is allowed to be called a justice issue. If homosexual sexual practice is deemed perfectly okay, the only reason not to ordain a practitioner would be prejudice, and who could allow such so-called bigotry to be practiced for long? It is only because homosexual practice is sinful that there is a legitimate reason and even a conscientious mandate not to ordain those practicing homosexual behavior. But the idea of real, solid, enduring right and wrong seems lost to many Presbyterians in a sea of mindless emotion, the urge to be hip, and callous "compassion," and so we will be left with progressives having to tolerate what they would consider grievous bigotry in those of us who will remain steadfast in maintaining biblical sexual standards. That progressive tolerance will become as fleeting as progressive biblical fidelity. Mark my words. |
Noel Anderson
said:
|
Upland CA This article advances the idea that if 10-A passes, "it won't be a problem" because conservative presbyteries can still be conservative. Presbyteries that choose to so can still codify fidelity/chastity locally, but the fact remains that we have eroded into a patent double-mindedness. At synod or GA meetings, Presbyterians who hold to the traditional interpretation of biblical texts would be expected to break bread with (or even receive communion from) pastors whose lifestyles are seen to be in direct defiance of scripture and church discipline. Per 1 Corinthians 5:11, etc., how can they take communion without perjuring their integrity? 10-A makes it impossible for evangelicals and conservatives to partake in The Lord's Supper in good conscience wherever nonrepentant, self-avowed (now PCUSA-avowed) practicing homosexuals (or freewheeling heterosexuals) are either ordained or installed. 10-A is the single most divisive piece of legislation to slither its way into approval. It will prove the greatest threat to our unity in 150 years. Just watch. |
Jim Conner
said:
|
Arcadia, Ca What about the more obvious problem of people being unfaithful in whatever relationship. There are far more cases involving infidelity than almost anything. Now lets say person A is in a relationship with person B that is 'committed.' What does that mean, especially when Person A takes up with Person C and person B complains to the presbytery. Who adjudicates that and how? Answer no one has a clue, it will be a free for all. But the real truth is those who want to open sexual standards wide have stated their position on line, they want to wipe out any prohibition for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and single non married persons [check out the covenant Networks website]. So person A can be with person B and C at the same time depending on how they self define by sexual practice/desire and what they deem to be committed. Did i really just write that. Please all you false teachers of promiscuity clarify for us. |
Write a Response
